VZCZCXYZ0009
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1430/01 2121511
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 311511Z JUL 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9701
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001430 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETTC KTFN EFIN UNSC PREL PGOV
SUBJECT: 1267 COMMITTEE PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS AND FAIRNESS 
 
REF: A. STATE 65363 
     ¶B. PARIS 3382 
     ¶C. USUN 917 
     ¶D. MOSCOW 4497 
     ¶E. LONDON 3046 
     ¶F. BEIJING 7918 
     ¶G. USUN 1078 
 
¶1. (U) This is an Action Request.  Please see Paragraph 7. 
 
¶2. (SBU) For the past few weeks, USUN and the French Mission 
have been working quietly on bridging our differences in the 
"due process" debate currently underway in the UN Security 
Council's 1267 (al-Qaida/Taliban) Sanctions Committee (REF 
A).  During a July 20 meeting, the French Mission Legal 
Adviser gave USUN a compromise proposal (paragraph 8). 
 
¶3. (SBU) The compromise proposal creates a focal point 
mechanism (REF B), but does not/not create direct access to 
the sanctions committee for a listed individual.  Instead, 
the focal point, which would reside within the UN Secretariat 
Sanctions Branch, would administer the proposals originally 
set out in the U.S. paper on procedural protections and 
fairness in the 1267 Committee.  The focal point would 
receive de-listing petitions from sanctioned individuals, but 
then instead of sending those petitions to the sanctions 
committee, the focal point would send the petitions to the 
countries of citizenship/residence, the designating state, 
and possibly any state with frozen assets belonging to the 
sanctioned individual.  (Comment: The French have not yet 
agreed to have the focal point send the petitions to any 
state with blocked assets belonging to the sanctioned 
individual.  Notably, they have expressed concern that 
Switzerland - one of the key European critics of the UN 
sanctions committees' current de-listing procedures - might 
oppose such a proposal.  France wants to be sure that 
Switzerland and other European critics can accept any new 
procedures the 1267 Committee and other committees adopt. 
End comment.) 
 
¶4. (SBU) If none of those states responded within a 
reasonable amount of time (the French prefer only one month, 
but USUN stressed the time frame would need to be longer), 
the focal point would then send the petition to all members 
of the Security Council and ask if any member wished to 
forward the petition to the sanctions committee for 
consideration.  Members of the Committee would have one month 
(time frame is still under discussion) in which to decide 
whether to forward the petition.  If a member decided to 
forward the petition, the Committee would then need to act 
upon it, and then the focal point would advise the petitioner 
of the Committee's decision.  If not, the focal point would 
inform the petitioner that the Committee's process of 
consideration had ended and he or she remained on the list. 
Thus, the focal point would administer the U.S. proposal of 
"expanding the circle" of States that could consider a 
de-listing petition. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The proposed focal point would function in parallel 
to the current de-listing procedures, which allow a 
sanctioned individual to petition directly his/her State of 
citizenship or residence.  The focal point would be given no 
authority to substantively review the de-listing petitions. 
Instead, it would perform only administrative functions.  All 
of the substantive review would remain within the purview of 
Member States. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The proposed compromise formulation would apply both 
to the 1267 Committee and to the other UN sanctions 
committees.  The focal point would be established either 
through a Security Council resolution or through a letter 
from the President of the Security Council to the 
Secretary-General.  (NOTE: The Security Council could 
 
SIPDIS 
establish the focal point for a limited period, for example, 
one year, and then review its effectiveness at the end of 
that period in deciding whether to make it permanent.  END 
NOTE.) 
 
COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST 
-------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) USUN believes the French compromise proposal 
achieves the main USG objectives and protects our interests. 
The compromise represents the best opportunity for reaching 
consensus in the 1267 Committee because most other Committee 
members have been looking to the U.S. and France to agree a 
way forward.  Accepting the proposed compromise would defuse 
a debate that is undermining U.S. interests in effective 
enforcement and expansion of the 1267 sanctions regime and 
other UN sanctions.  USUN recommends that the Department 
 
instruct USUN to support this proposal. 
 
 
¶8. (SBU) Begin Text: 
 
Respective Tasks of the Focal Point and of the Sanctions 
Committees 
 
The SC would request the SG to establish, within the 
Secretariat (Sanctions Branch), a focal point to receive 
 
SIPDIS 
delisting requests.  Individuals seeking to submit a request 
for de-listing could do so either through the focal point 
process outlined below or, if permitted or required by that 
State, through their State of residence or citizenship. 
 
The tasks the focal point would perform would, sequentially, 
be the following: 
 
--1.  receive requests of delisting from a petitioner 
(individual(s), groups, undertakings, and/or entities on the 
sanctions committees lists) 
 
--2.  verify if the request is new or is a repeated request 
 
--3.  if it is a repeated request and if it does not contain 
any new justification, return it to the petitioner 
 
--4.  acknowledge receipt of the request to the petitioner 
and inform the petitioner on the general procedure for 
processing that request 
 
--5.  forward the request, for information and comments 
(approve, disapprove, neutral, no comment, other(), to the 
designating government and to the government of 
citizenship/residence, (and to the government of the State or 
States in which the assets are blocked), 
 
--6.  after a short period of time ((three month)) 
 
-- (a) forward the request to the Chairman of the sanctions 
committee, accompanied by the comments made by the 
designating government or the government of 
citizenship/residence, (or the government of the State or 
States in which the petitioner's assets are blocked) 
 
-- (b) or, if none of the above States has made comments, 
forward the request to all members of the committee, asking 
them if they wish to forward the petition, along with an 
adequate justification, within a set timeframe ((one month)) 
(one endorsement would be sufficient) 
 
--7.  inform the petitioner: 
 
--  (a) of the decision of the sanctions committee to delist 
him/her; 
 
--  (b) or, that the process of consideration of the petition 
within the committee has been completed and that he/she 
remains on the list of the committee. 
 
The role of the sanctions committee would be the following: 
 
--1.  Review the requests forwarded by the focal point: 
 
--  (a) together with the comments made by the designating 
government and/or the government of citizenship/residence; 
 
--  (b) or with the endorsement of a member State of the 
committee 
 
--2.  decide to accept the request or refuse it or that it is 
not in a position to accept it at this stage; 
 
--3.  request the focal point to inform the petitioner of its 
decision. 
 
End text. 
BOLTON